Jump to content

Talk:The Beatles/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Lead issue #2

Indopug keeps changing "During their years of international stardom," to some thing else, most recently "For most of their history," with edit comments such as "Reduces the fawning nature of the lead." The point of "During their years of international stardom" is not to reinforce "international stardom"; the point is to define the period when the subsequently listed members were the band, and also indicates (subtly) that this is the lineup that most people knew. "For most of their history," is accurate, but doesn't indicate that this is the lineup for the heyday of the band. Is there another alternative that avoids "international stardom"? — John Cardinal (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to, "From 1962 until their breakup in 1970," but feel free to undo pending further discussion if you think it looks worse. PL290 (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"doesn't indicate that this is the lineup for the heyday of the band" - which is why I had initially said "The group primarily consisted of". Apart from the fawning, another issue with "During their years of international stardom" is that it is inaccurate. The Lads weren't international stars when "Love Me Do" and Please Please Me were released, but the core lineup was established; the "international stardom" statement seems to contradict this fact. —indopug (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The lineup was the four members indicated during their years of international stardom. It also happens that the same members were in the band for a short period of time before that, but that doesn't mean the statement is inaccurate. "From 1962 until their breakup in 1970," is more accurate but it's not clear why we are telling the reader about that period of time: what's special about those years? I think we introduce more problems than we solve by changing it from "During their years of international stardom" to the other alternatives implemented so far, and we are doing it for what? To avoid describing The Beatles as international stars? — John Cardinal (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have explained why I think my last change gives what you asked for. The sentence before gives the year of formation, 1960, so isn't it pretty clear that the lineup "From 1962 until their breakup in 1970," must be the lineup in the heyday of the band? Or, to use your other phrase, doesn't it indicate (subtly) that this is the lineup that most people knew? PL290 (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
How about just "During their heyday, the group consisted of . . ."? Too informal? —indopug (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, I like it <g>, but it is somewhat informal. If other editors judge it too informal, I can live with "From 1962 until their breakup in 1970." — John Cardinal (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
"Heyday"--good word. Well done all. DocKino (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles: Rock Band image

I don't feel strongly about it, but I am in favor of the inclusion of the image, and I believe it can pass our NFC policy hurdles. However, it needs a fair use rationale specific to this article and a rigorously constructed one at that. It currently has no fair use rationale at all for this article. Someone who feels more strongly about the image's inclusion needs to write one forthwith, or we'll have to remove it. DocKino (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. For that image to be included that image has to be specifically discussed in the prose; nowhere is there a discussion of Rock Band's depiction of the Ed Sullivan performance in the prose. Also, remember that the video game is a very minor footnote in the group's career; it isn't even technically a release by the band. (FYI there was a fair-use rationale, which I had removed, and now restored.) —indopug (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. Reading the rationale, I tend to agree that the case, at present, is not too strong. The rationale comes down to two central points:
  • "The image demonstrates the lasting influence the band has on popular culture...and their crossover into a relatively new medium". I'm afraid I don't see anything in the visual content of the image that "demonstrates" these facts in a way that goes significantly beyond the text.
  • "The scene depicted in the animation is important to the article because it is one of the most significant moments in the group's history...the first live U.S. performance in 1964 televised on the Ed Sullivan Show". I see you recently added this PL, and I understand the logic behind it, but it really seems like the groundwork for fair use of an image of that pivotal, famous event, not an animated re-creation of it.
In sum, I think (a) while the creation and release of the video game are important events, they are not central enough to the history of The Beatles that they merit fair use illustration on the basis of "event significance" alone. In that case, (b) it is necessary that there be some particular visual component of the image itself that increases our understanding of the article. As Indopug suggests, there is currently nothing in the primary or the caption text which the content of the image helps us understand. That's not to say there couldn't be. For instance, have any game reviewers or other critics commented on the accuracy or the style of the visual depiction of The Beatles in the game (i) in a way that would be informative to our readers and that (ii) this or another image from the game would help us more fully understand? If not... DocKino (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Your analysis seems accurate, including that of my addition to the rationale. I feel the same way about the image—I don't strongly defend it; it will add to the article should it ultimately prove justifiable. Over to those who may be able to provide justification via game reviewers/critics as you've suggested... PL290 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
If that kind of analysis is necessary it may be better suited to the Beatles Rock Band article than this one.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed: what critics/reviewers say about the game belongs to the video game's article. —indopug (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Contribution of George Martin"

Why is Martin's opinions of the difference between John's and Paul's songwriting styles in this section? In particular, all that Sgt Pepper stuff is completely out of place there. This section is meant to discuss the man's contributions.

Also the section seems to omit a few important facts: the evolution of his role with the Fabs. I remember reading somewhere / him saying in an interview that in the beginning, he was a strict disciplinarian in the studio. As timed moved on, he became "a trusted set of ears" and an actualiser of their ideas. He also says that with time, The Beatles grew more at ease in the studio, and needed him lesser and lesser. —indopug (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's completely out of place. His views on John and Paul's differing approaches to songwriting are relevant because it was his job to act as a translator, to make sure that what was in their heads came out on record as they wanted it. Perhaps the section could be rewritten to make this link more explicit: that their different approaches required different responses from him.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Discography section of this article

Past Masters was just deleted from the straight list of official Beatle albums. I included Past Masters because it covers the tracks not in the official albums. Should it be included?

Support -- Past Masters gathers together the tracks not included in the original British Beatle LPs and the American Magical Mystery Tour album which became an official album when it was issued on CD. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, because its still not a studio album. And there's a not about Past Masters further down in the part about CD releases. Deserted Cities (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, as per Deserted Cities.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I came up with a solution. The song catalogue subsection looked out of place in retrospect so I moved it to the bottom of the discography section. So the CD releases section is now directly below the list of official Beatle albums. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Song catalogue still looked out of place so I made it its own section. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The list of Beatle albums at the beginning of this section must be the 12 original British Beatle LPs. The Magical Mystery Tour album is not to be on the list, but is mentioned in the CD release section immediately below. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Magical Mystery Tour will remain on the list. The summary "Discography" reflects the canon of The Beatles' studio albums as now defined. That's a clear, unambiguous, and relevant standard. It also eliminates arguments over the status of individual records--not only MMT, but Yellow Submarine, which despite its labeling, is technically a various artists' record. The original nature of the MMT release is very clearly explicated in the article. DocKino (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
But that does not rectify and only complicates wording in the Past Masters album concerning why the album was conceived. As you know, the American MMT LP was made part of the official Beatles album list with the CD era, but not before then. Either the Past Masters album needs to be rewritten or make it clear in The Beatles article that there were 12 original Beatle albums issued in the UK, not 13. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

New poll. Should the Magical Mystery Tour album be included in the list of official Beatle albums at the top of the discography section of this article?

  • Oppose--MMT was not issued as an LP in the UK in 1967, even though it was imported and charted as a result. Even when it was issued officially in 1976, it was still not considered official when in 1979 The Beatles Collection box set was released. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Beatles Discography lists Magical Mystery Tour as one of the 13 studio albums. Both The Beatles Discography and The Beatles explain that Magical Mystery Tour became part of the official canon. Admittedly for its US release the UK Magical Mystery Tour was boosted by the addition of singles tracks, so the full album is in some sense part-compilation; however, Past Masters is different because it has only ever been a compilation, i.e., it could never be considered a studio album by any stretch of the imagination. I would not think the 1979 box set changes things and so all other things being equal, going by the statements in both articles about its inclusion in the official canon, it seems to me that Magical Mystery Tour should be present on the list of studio albums, whereas Past Masters should not. PL290 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keep it out. It would be misleading to suggest MMT is the follow-up album to Pepper - that was the White Album. Note that Template:The Beatles lists it separately as a US album.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep in - Per PL290's analysis. I'd reiterate the observation that The Beatles Collection is irrelevant to this debate. If we had been compiling a summary discography before 1987, it could arguably have included either (a) the 12 original British LPs or (b) the 12 original British LPs and the 2 original British EPs (Long Tall Sally and MMT). Post-1987, the discography should comprise the 13 canonized studio albums (two of which happen to be "impure"--one post facto [MMT], and one to begin with [Yellow Submarine]). DocKino (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Further comment: terminology, and another alternative - the function of the list in this article is to briefly identify those albums now considered to form the canonical discography. That is not the same thing as saying MMT (or YS) must be shoehorned into the category "studio album". I will be happy if a solution can be found that addresses this to everyone's satisfaction by showing the true picture, and to this end I offer for consideration: list the 11 actual studio albums under that heading, followed by MMT and YS and the note: "In addition to the 11 studio albums, Capitol's US release Magical Mystery Tour (1967), a compilation which supplements the tracks from the UK EP of the same name with songs released as singles during 1967, and the UK film soundtrack release Yellow Submarine (1969) are now officially considered part of the band's canonical discography." PL290 (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree ... with PL290's latest comment. Also, I don't understand Steelbeard1's removal of the wikilink to the discography; the link text is "studio albums" and the link opens the discography page at that section. That section includes all the studio albums with the canon articles marked as such. What's confusing about that? — John Cardinal (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I had explained when I made the edit that the discography, in its present format, does not clearly list the 12 original Beatle albums issued in the UK. The original 12 lists Yellow Submarine and does not include Magical Mystery Tour. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, let's not speak so confidently about what constitutes an "original" Beatles "album" and what does not. The UK MMT double-EP contained six original Beatles songs, comprising 19 minutes, 8 seconds of original Beatles music. The Yellow Submarine LP contained four original Beatles songs, comprising 15 minutes, 18 seconds of original Beatles music. What we can say confidently is that both the US MMT LP (now worldwide CD) and UK Yellow Submarine LP (now worldwide CD) are now regarded as canonical albums. DocKino (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The definition of "album" in this context is 12" LPs. Under this definition, Yellow Submarine qualifies even though only side one has Beatle recordings. Magical Mystery Tour does not because it was issued in the UK as a double 7" EP set, imports notwithstanding. We can't get any more clear than that. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not terribly clear at all. And the word "album" is subject to a wide variety of definitions. However, it is quite clear what the 13 canonical albums are now. DocKino (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It is abundantly clear when you recall at the time when The Beatles were an active group what constitues an album. While there were 8-track tapes and compact cassettes also issued at that time, the primary album format in the 1960s and early 1970s was the 12 inch long playing gramophone record. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, that was the primary album format then. But this article--and, specifically, its summary discography--exists now, not then, and exists to serve readers in the present, not the past. The primary album format now is the CD. And the MMT CD is recognized as one of the canonical Beatles albums. That is 100% clear. DocKino (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
But the past does matter. This is an encyclopedia, you know. If you want the present, read NME or Rolling Stone. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the past matters. That's why the history of MMT is described in detail in the article, in the section helpfully titled...wait for it..."History". But a summary discography is not the place to set in amber a particular interpretation of the past. It should reflect the prevalent view in the present. If you want nothing but the past, read an old discography...or an old encyclopedia. DocKino (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with DocKino. Futhermore, there was no such thing as "The Beatles canon" in the 1960s or even the 1970s and so the "12 12"LPs" was a limited notion known primarily to a subset of Beatle fans. The largest market for Beatle records--the US--didn't know about the MMT EP, didn't have access to "With The Beatles", etc. The canon was established in 1987 and the LP version of MMT was part of it. Canon reflects--primarily--the original LPs as formulated by Martin and The Beatles, but it was defined in 1987. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Remember that this is an encyclopedia so how do we handle the Beatle albums prior to the CD era, especially in regards to the CD release subsection of this article and the Past Masters (album series) article? I removed the original album links because, in their present format, the linked articles had become misleading. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that the Beatles, when they were active, never released an album called "Past Masters." It's a compilation, like many other compilations. Is it out of the question to make the discography three lists - UK, US and the current studio collection? Carlo (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
That's unnecessary. There's an entire article--The Beatles discography--for those who want to explore the discography at that level of detail. DocKino (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Then why not just link to that article, and not bother with a single discography in this one? There ISN'T a single "official" discography. Why pretend that you can make one? Carlo (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(1) You are wrong. There IS now a single "official" discography.
(2) It is customary to provide a summary discography, listing the "official" studio albums and their year of release, in all band articles. DocKino (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


(outdent) Steelbeard1, you keep saying that the linked article is misleading but you don't respond to the points from people who disagree. There were no magic 12 albums in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. Until the CD era, each market had its own releases, and so as of 1970, the UK market had 12 LPs and an MMT EP, but the US market had many more and MMT was an LP. By 1976, the US MMT LP was issued in the UK. Canon was defined in the 1980s with the release of the CDs that were (appropriately) primarily based on the UK releases. The US LP version of MMT was included in that canon. The discography article explains all that, and it designates the 13 canon releases in its larger list of studio albums. That's pretty clear. There's no need to have two (or more) lists on that page and there's no need to delete the link from here to that list. Consensus is going against you, which doesn't mean you don't have a point, but it suggests that perhaps you should yield on this one.

CFortunato, DocKino is right that the place to debate that is on the discography page. FYI, there was a long discussion about that and consensus was to have a single list of studio albums and indicate the albums later designated as canon with a marker. To discuss this more, go to that page. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, no solution has been thought up about how to deal with the wording in both the CD releases subsection of this article and the Past Masters (The Beatles albums) article where the "12 original British Beatle albums and Magical Mystery Tour were released on CD". The closest solution found so far was to footnote the list of 13 albums to indicate that MMT was originally issued in the UK as a double 7" set and that Yellow Submarine is a soundtrack album. But that still does not rectify the problem of not having a clean list of the 12 original British Beatles album in some article which can then be linked to the two articles in question. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Option 3: a tweaked version of what I said before which I believe takes all subsequent comments into account. Under the heading "Original UK LPs", list the 12 albums. Follow this with a note, "(For Magical Mystery Tour, see CD releases below.)" PL290 (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This I agree with. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Smile and abandon

John cardinal, Strawberry Fields Forever was not the cause. Paul, Lennon admired the group. McCartney recorded Vega-Tables on Smile. I have not erased the sentence because I respect the wikipedia, but in this case I will have to remove it. (Mago266 (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)) Strawberry Fields Forever and Brian again... Pretentious text and original search for this controversial issue. Unethical bounce. This music was the least of problems, so write a whole page about SMILE here!!!!!!!!! It is more important to write about the musicality of the sound than waste time with bands of others. (Mago266 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

The material you have repeatedly removed is verifiable and backed up by reliable sources. These are the principles for inclusion of material in the encyclopedia, not an individual editor's personal wishes and opinions about The Beach Boys, Brian Wilson or Smile. This has been made abundantly clear to you by several editors ever since your first post on 3 November. Please stop your vandalism of The Beatles and File:Strawberryfields.ogg to push your own opinion onto the encyclopedia. PL290 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I would comment that I find the content WP:Undue, in that this is an article about the Beatles rather than the Beach Boys - plus there is no mention of the rivalry between the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, which resulted in Jagger/Richard becoming almost a potent songwriting force as was Lennon/McCartney, or any of the other bands/songwriters that were at times considered competitors. The content may be more relevant in a Brian Wilson/Beach Boys article than this one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It may well not be appropriate for the article to cover all the rivalries in detail; that might prove a distraction from the band's main story. The incident in question is mentioned in passing purely as an example and serves to illustrate the striking contrast of Sgt. Pepper with the band's previous offerings. Regarding WP:UNDUE, that would indeed be a concern if reliable sources had published conflicting views concering this subject matter; however, as far as I am aware that is not the case. Certainly none have been brought to our attention by the editor voicing grievance. PL290 (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Jagger/Richard/Rolling Stones was a far longer running relationship with the Beatles (Lennon/McCartney writing an early hit for them, them appearing in All You Need is Love broadcast some years later, part of the same Swinging England scene, members of both bands being considered spokesmen for their generation, as well as the "rivalry") than did the Beach Boys, and Sgt Pepper changed very many bands, including the Stones, approach to album making - but this section emphasises Brian Wilson's (although major) reaction only. That is where I consider that WP:Undue considerations are being raised, in regard to this article (and section).
Also, referring to reasoned reverting of content (which should be considered as good faith as censorship is not an attitude that promotes discussion and consensus. Even if the reasons are not valid, they should be explained as such rather than dismissed with such language. I know (don't I just!) how passionate people can be about editing this article, so neutral and respectful commentary really does improve the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess I fired from the hip (for once) and you'll see that I've retracted "vandalism" below, and I take your point about "censorship" and I also retract that, acknowledging that the editor was acting in good faith but without a reliable source. Returning to the question of inclusion/balance of rivalry content, it seems more thought may be needed and I would like to hear further voices on this. PL290 (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? Respect me. I 'm serious man. Stop you.I'll remove this pretentious phrase! It is more important to write about the musicality of the sound than waste time with bands of others. Here is an encyclopaedia and not a blog of the Beatles. You need to study THE HISTORY OF SMILE. The Smile abandon was millions of problems, and not Strawberry the cause of all. This text focuses the problem on a cause single. You want to enlarge the Beatles through others. This is illusion. The Smile, and Good Vibrations is musically and technically better than Strawberry. The magical world of Beatlemania. RESPECT ME! (Mago266 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)) This text is a vandalism and is unethical ! (Mago266 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Hmmm... AGF cuts both ways, as does respect. Please argue your position as relating to policy, and use moderate language. I think you will need to cite sources for your contentions over which record was better, and you might find your opinion is not backed by sources. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :OK I respect you! But please will you respect the principles I've cited? I'm not arguing which is better, Beatles or Beach Boys, but even if "The Smile, and Good Vibrations is musically and technically better than Strawberry", that is not one of Wikipedia's principles for including or excluding verifiable information. Do you believe what the article says is incorrect? Will you produce a citation to verifiable information from reliable sources to demonstrate this? That is all we are asking. Otherwise, the information as it stands does not "waste time", and does add value to the article as explained. Sorry if "vandalism" was too strong a word—I take it back—but if you remove cited information without real justification it upsets people. PL290 (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You called me a vandal, directly or indirectly, but this text is pretentious and the Smile abandon was millions of problems, and not Strawberry the cause of all. This text focuses the problem on a cause single. The document is approximately two hours, and the Beatles music was spoken very very little. Strawberry is negligible compared to the thousands of problems that left Brian discouraged. It is much more partial to comment on the musicality of good song than to talk about Smile abandon so incomplete and unfair. Think about it. (Mago266 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

Life of Brian

The cite about Brian Wilson has caused a controversy. Mago266 has posted several times in protest, and has repeatedly removed material about Sgt. Pepper and "Strawberry Fields". In response, several editors have defended the cite and there's been detailed discussion about its inclusion in three different sections above (here, here and here). Yesterday, after cited material was again removed from both The Beatles and File:Strawberryfields.ogg, I went too far and accused Mago266 of censorship and vandalism. I have since apologized and retracted those remarks, but the thing is, the article's not saying that The Beatles are better or greater, or comparing them with Brian Wilson as a person or The Beach Boys as a group or whatever it is. It isn't saying whatever Mago266 is saying it's saying. It was never meant to be a lousy anti-Brian thing. During the discussion yesterday though, LessHeard vanU observed that there may be undue weight given to the Brian Wilson rivalry, since the article doesn't mention the band's other rivalries (The Rolling Stones etc.). My initial reaction was that it would not be appropriate for the article to cover those rivalries in detail as it would detract from the main history, and the Brian Wilson cite is purely an example in passing to illustrate the dramatic effect the output from the Pepper sessions had on rivals, just as is typically stated in the Beatles biographies I've seen. But I am asking that we now think more about this and consider again whether we should make a change. Please indicate what you think should be done, and why, in the poll below. It goes without saying that WP principles take precedence over personal opinions in this poll. PL290 (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Brian Wilson cite

Please indicate which of the following options you think is most appropriate, and why, so we can all judge the correct action to take.

Expand the article to mention other rivalries (Rolling Stones etc.)
  •  
Remove the Brian Wilson cite
  • It is simply not relevant enough to include in this already-very-long article. Also note that there is no mention of Wilson or even The Beach Boys either before or after this sentence. So the reader has no context to appreciate this sentence.—indopug (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove the cite, and perhaps fork it to an article detailing the Beatles interactions, rivalries and influences with other bands? If such a fork existed, then the Brian Wilson cite could be used as an example? As is, it provides quite an unbalanced viewpoint of how one album effected one contemporary major songwriter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the original objection was about the accuracy of the implication that "Strawberry Fields" was a major factor leading to the abandonment of the Smile project. Even a reliable source (or a second reliable source probably relying on the first) can fall prey to hyperbole and over-simplification. Quite a few articles were written about the issues surrounding the 1967 Smile when Brian remade it in 2004. They typically cite Brian's untreated mental illness, drug use, record company impatience, strong disagreements with the other Beach Boys, and self-doubts stemming from the relatively poor sales of Pet Sounds, without any mention of a "crushing blow" from The Beatles. Saying that certain Beatles' achievements led to Brain Wilson ceasing efforts would be like saying "Yoko's presence created tension at recording sessions, and soon afterward The Beatles broke up." A direct quote from Brian on the topic would be an appropriate substitute, if one can be found. —Mainstream Nerd (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep things as they are
  • Keep as is - The Brian Wilson portion of the article is not about a rivalry between The Beatles and The Beach Boys. The article mentions Wilson and his reaction to SFF to illustrate The Beatles' "creativity and desire to experiment" that accelerated around the time they recorded SFF. As it happens, Wilson was already struggling with Smile and reliable sources say hearing SFF was a critical blow. That makes it strong and relevant evidence of how The Beatles "astounded contemporary artists." I would not oppose expanding the article to discuss rivalries with other artists, but given one choice of three, I'd keep the article as is. Expanding the article to include other rivalries is a separate topic if you accept that the Wilson issue is not about rivalries. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as is - Per John's analysis above. Your reaction is certainly understandable, PL, in light of the fact that the editor who deleted this evidently well-sourced material did so on the basis of such rationales as "No reliable source" and "Unethical bounce". DocKino (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don’t think Lennon and McCartney seriously considered the Stones a threat to their creativity, Jagger and Richards aspiring towards them, if anything. McCartney does though repeatedly cite Wilson as someone who raised the bar (sorry) and made him think in greater depth about arrangement, and so therefore valid IMO.--Patthedog (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The cite is not about rivalry between bands. Rivalry between bands can anyway be a figment of others' imagination: it does not befit an encyclopedia to embrace the value judgements implicit therein. Fans may love to say their favourite band is better or greater than other bands, and the media be happy to hype it up. The story from the bands themselves is often different. As artists, they can inspire each other, reciprocally, to greater things; they may well be more interested in building up other people's talents than putting their own on a podium. We should confine ourselves to citing reliable sources. Biographers tell us that "Georgio Giomelski, who was unofficially managing the Rolling Stones ... went along to the recording of Thank Your Lucky Stars at Twickenham, where the Beatles were recording "From Me To You" on 14 April 1963, and invited them down to the Crawdaddy club, which was only three miles away, to see the Stones. Harrison was to comment, '... The beat the Stones laid down was so solid it shook off the walls and seemed to move inside your head. A great sound.' The Stones invited the Beatles back to their flat." (Source: Harry (2000a) pp. 927–8.) Then, "While Harrison was judging a beat group contest in Liverpool, he told fellow panellist Dick Rowe about the Rolling Stones and Rowe immediately set off for London and signed the group to Decca Records." (Source: Harry (2000a) pp. 927–8.) Lennon and McCartney wrote a song for the Stones to use: "On 10 September 1963, John and Paul bumped into Andrew Oldham in Jermyn Street and he took them to the Stones' rehearsal at Studio 51, where they completed a song called "I Wanna Be Your Man", which gave the Stones their first Top Ten hit."(Source: Harry (2000a) p. 928.) We're told that "There was friendship on a personal level between the two bands and they were often meeting socially at clubs such as the Ad Lib and Scotch of St James, laughing at the fact that the press painted them as bitter rivals." (Source: Harry (2000a) pp. 928–9.) Moreover, "while the Stones were recording at Olympic Sound Studios in Barnes, John and Paul turned up and added backing vocals to 'We Love You'", and when invited to a Beatles session at Abbey Road, Brian Jones turned up with a sax and played it on "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)"(Source: Harry (2000a) pp. 929.) After Epstein's death there was talk of the two bands working together to create a joint talent centre and build up other people's talents. (Source: Harry (2000a) pp. 929–30.) We also find that The Beatles "praised the Beach Boys back home in England, which helped to increase the group's popularity", and that McCartney regarded "God Only Knows" as "the best song ever written".(Source: Harry (2000a) pp. 100.) We're told that the competitiveness was "particularly in the mind of Brian Wilson" (Source: Harry (2000a) p. 89) The mutual inspiration and admiration between McCartney and Wilson seems more the point as far as The Beatles' story is concerned. Currently the Wilson cite has a clear context (output from Pepper sessions "astounded contemporary artists seeking to outdo The Beatles") but we could perhaps consider mentioning Wilson at two earlier points, namely Rubber Soul ("Brian was so impressed he was determined to outshine it", resulting in Pet Sounds), and pre-Pepper (since, as the article already notes, McCartney was amazed and inspired by Pet Sounds, and Martin commented, "Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds." (Source: McQuiggin 2009.). PL290 (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reference looks good to me; it's a perfect illustration of the high achievement that was Sgt. Pepper. Powers T 14:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Observations on arguments to remove cite:

  • The claim "that there is no mention of Wilson or even The Beach Boys either before or after" the sentence in question is false. The following passage, in fact, appears later in the article: "The Beatles continued to absorb influences long after their initial success, often finding new musical and lyrical avenues by listening to their contemporaries, including Bob Dylan, Frank Zappa, The Byrds and The Beach Boys, whose 1966 album Pet Sounds amazed and inspired McCartney. Martin stated, 'Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds.'"
  • The suggestion that one of the two sources cited for the passage in question is "probably relying on the first" is baseless.
  • The attempted analogy to the hypothetical statement about Ono fails on grounds of both internal structure and external evidence. DocKino (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
That is in a section entitled "Project collapse". But the cite in The Beatles is not about band rivalry. Please see my further comments above on this. PL290 (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is having Problems

Hello everyone, Allmusic.com seems to be going through some odd phase right now where some of its information towards albums is incorrect, and I would like some help.

Allmusic.com has Beatles For Sale (1964) is now missing from The Beatles main album discography as well as many tracks from all their studio albums. For example, Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band has only 3 tracks under the song track list for the album though the duration of the album says 35 minutes...which obviously does not make sense. Please Please Me has a number of tracks missing as well as Rubber Soul, Let It Be, Abbey Road, etc. Like I said, it is like this for all their main studio albums, tracks are missing from the track list which needs to be corrected but one voice sayin this is incorrect can only go so far. So to those who read this please looks up these pages on allmusic.com and scroll to the bottoms of each page and click on Corrections to this Entry to inform the site of these mistakes so their information can once again be correct,thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.216.153 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Good topics"?

Hey guys, so I was going through the Beatles' articles, notably the influential people and learned that you guys have done a tremendous job making sure that that articles are of great standards in general. Really impressed. With the amount of articles being at least GA (so far I've noticed that the influential people related to this band are; the band members themselves John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, former members Pete Best, and Stuart Sutcliffe, as well as Brian Epstein, Mal Evans, Magic Alex, George Martin and various others. Anyway, this is only from briefly flicking through related pages, and I was wondering if it's worth making a Wikipedia:Good topics thing out of it? Thoughts?... -- Harish (Talk) - 12:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Attack of the killer Cliches

So what does "Hey Day" mean anyway? Is that a standard cliche around the world?--Jojhutton (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cliche? Heyday is defined on wikitionary and on Princton's WordNet. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


LOVE and Across the Universe

is there a discussion on this page about how the music of the Beatles has caused new things to happen? By this, I mean the show LOVE in LA is a tribute to the Beatles, as well as the movie Across the Universe. Just curious... I didn't see one. Kkscarbro (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Genres

How can The Beatles only be listed as Rock,Pop when they were so many genres of music. John Lennon as solo artist is listed Rock,Pop Rock,Psychedelic Rock,Experimental Rock and Rock and Roll. Paul McCartney as a solo artist is listed Rock,Pop,Psychedelic Rock,Experimental Rock,Hard Rock,Rock and Roll and Classical music. George Harrison as a solo artist is listed Rock,pop,Psychedelic and Experimental. Ringo Starr as a solo artist is listed Rock,Pop and Psychedelic. So i was wondering how can the Beatles only be listed as Rock and Pop and the members as a solo artists listed with the genres that the band should of course be listed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jongudni (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a hierarchy. Psychedelic rock is a kind of Rock, Hard Rock is a kind of Rock, and Experimental Rock is a kind of Rock. Rock and Pop covers it. We get this all the time, across the whole of Wikipedia; people add more and more genres to infoboxes because that's what it looks as though they should contain, and others remove them, and edit warring results. No one has yet found a solution. But Rock and Pop covers it for these guys. PL290 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Somebody should change the members' articles' to just 'Rock, pop' as well.—indopug (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree (+ classical for McCartney of course). PL290 (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
A general rule of thumb I go by is if you have more than three subgenres to list, go with the overarching genre; it's more concise that way. Not to mention the Beatles' impact is so great on rock as a whole it's kind of pointless to list specific subgenres. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if there were some guidelines/standards for this but I'm not aware any exist at the moment. I don't know if the problem is that people can't agree on the usage, or if it's simply not documented. Would this not be something to cover within Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD? PL290 (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I think it is foolish to disregard the specific genres which The Beatles explored. Stealthorpe —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

Royal Variety performance and Beatlemania

Shouldn't their performance at the Royal variety performance in october 1963 be mentioned?. This was when the media first recognised how hugely popular they were and when the term 'Beatlemania' was first used. Shouldn't it at least be mentioned here in brief?. There are other individual performances mentioned (Ed Sullivan, Shea stadium for eg.) Metafis (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Pawlowski, the Royal Variety Performance was on 4 November, and the term "Beatlemania" was coined earlier by a Fleet Street headline writer the morning after the October 13 "Val Parnell's Sunday Night at the London Palladium" (see Beatlemania in the United Kingdom for the cite). What's the source for the Royal Variety claim? Did the Queen exhibit Beatlemania? :) It's possible there are competing claims for the original coining of the term. Either way, personally, I'm not convinced there's any great need to give it space in this article. PL290 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Frankly I'm amazed the Royal Variety show isn't even mentioned. No "rattle your jewellery"? If two seminal American performances (Sullivan, Shea) are included, then for balance a British one should be too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"In their heyday..."

The phrase "In their heyday" was chosen by consensus after some back and forth about other options (see above). Lately, multiple editors have changed it. I favor what we have over the text used in those edits, but given the editing activity, perhaps we should discuss the matter. What do other editors think? — John Cardinal (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This has come up a lot, trying to express the post-Sutcliffe/Best period, hasn't it. I remember a while back we settled on "their years of international stardom" after much to-ing and fro-ing, and that stuck for quite a while. Heyday is pretty good. I noticed the latest edit made the comment that heyday can have connotations of "successful for a time and then fell out popularity". I'm not convinced it has to have those connotations, but I also think the latest suggestion, "for most of their existence", is pretty good too. PL290 (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Somehow this edit makes me less inclined to want to change it. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite; that edit merely attempted to reassert the change, with the comment, "Nothing to discuss: I'm right and the word "heyday" is inappropriate", in the face of your invitation to contribute to the existing discussion. Hardly conducive to a collaborative effort. As we continue to consider the best wording, I notice that "For most of their existence", while pretty good, itself leaves open the possibility that there was a period at the end with a different line-up—the very issue it was meant to fix. Bearing this in mind, let's remember "From 1962 until their breakup in 1970" which was among those mooted earlier and eliminates that particular issue completely. PL290 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
While I prefer the "In their heyday" for various reasons, "From 1962 until their breakup in 1970" is OK with me. It's a bit long, but it's accurate, and if it avoids the thrashing it's worth the extra syllables. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I personally don’t like “heyday”, it doesn’t sound encyclopaedic. What about: “Their ultimate (or eventual or something) line-up of JPG&R achieved international fame”. ?--Patthedog (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"Heyday" is a perfectly good, nonslangy English word of long standing. One of the reasons that modern encyclopedias are generally known for being boring or even painful to read is because they deny themselves the use of clear, strong, evocative language and instead employ stilted, verbose phrases in a self-defeating effort to "sound encyclopedic." We can do better. We do better. And that's why this is Wikipedia's heyday. DocKino (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but it is colloquial. I think we could do better than that, but it’s not worth starting a civil war over. --Patthedog (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with "heyday" IMO either. If we must change it, what about simply, "the classic line-up"?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Simply "From 1962" does it too. PL290 (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

in their hayday sounds awkward in a wikapedia article, also incredibly corny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

the beatles genre shouldn't be down as pop at all!

the Beatles are a rock band it's so obvious, if they count as pop then so would bands like The Who, The Smashing Pumpkins, Arctic Monkeys, you could even say that about the Ramone or Led Zeppelin They should be down as Rock or Classic Rock anything but Pop-

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmikeheaven (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You weren't there in the 1960s, were you? "Pop" meant something completely different then. But reliable sources call them "pop", and so shall we. Rodhullandemu 15:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Pop was considered a respectable thing in the UK back then. But I think it was different in the US - our pop sort of equalled US rock. That’s why we get these arguments regarding genres. The Beatles were quite happy to be called a “pop group” though, and to quote Lennon, were going to be “Toppermost of the Poppermost!”.--Patthedog (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If pop music can be considered as music targeted toward chart success, then the Beatles are the epitome of a pop music group. However, per this encyclopedia article it is per Rodhullandemu - we follow the sources. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Members/Former Members

All disbanded bands have their members in Former Members on the table on the right hand side, but the four Beatles are just in Members? I assume this is to keep the four recognised Beatles in one list separate from Best and Sutcliffe. 86.152.217.36 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus which developed is that the Fab Four be listed as "members" with the two ex-Beatles who left before the band became world famous as "former members" to avoid making the infobox misleading. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I would think it better to have a misleading infobox than a false one. While Stuart and Pete may be known as "former members", the other four are not known as "current members" (come to think of it, I don't see how that is not misleading). And if John and George are "current members" of any band at all, then please alert the media, because that would be the news of the century. Perhaps the infobox needs a new parameter (although I'm not sure what it would be called) to accommodate bands that are known for one particular member line-up. Playing devil's advocate, I would point out that the phrase, "John, Paul, George, and Ringo" (in that order, for some reason) might be as familiar to many ears as "The Beatles". The current/former distinction does make some intuitive sense. But if all six one-time members are listed as "former members", the reader still can figure out from the article--even from the lead--that four of these one-time members became much more famous (as "Beatles") than the other two. However, a reader is not going to understand how a disbanded band has "current members", two of whom are not even alive. Ultimately, the "current member" parameter seems more misleading in this case. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Remember that the user reads the infobox indicating "members", not "current members". This discussion is old hat, BTW, based on the 2007 discussion at [1]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Not surprisingly though, this has come up time and time again. I think it's time to revisit the question—and Cosmic Latte makes a very good point: currently {{Infobox musical artist}} does indeed allow "some exceptional cases (e.g. The Beatles)" to list members as "current" but what good does it actually do? It's confusing either way. Let's have a poll to gauge the current consensus on this question. If you vote in this poll, if possible please indicate the rationale for your choice.
Proposal: in accordance with the general guideline for inactive groups at {{Infobox musical artist}}, list all individuals in "former members", and none in "current members". PL290 (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I prefer the status quo. The article does not say they are "Current Members", it says "Members", and those four were the members when the group disbanded. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this topic should be listed at WP:PERENNIAL to save much bloodshed and ploughing over old ground again and again and again. Rodhullandemu 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The band is still marketed and referenced as being John, Paul, George and Ringo and the surviving members and the estates of the deceased are still involved in decisions relating to the band as a brand. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - The same effect is seen in other inactive bands. See, for example, Pink Floyd, where Syd Barrett and others are bundled into the former members along with those who remained members longer. Is it beneficial to the encyclopedia to make an exception for The Beatles? What are the criteria for the exception? Would it instead be preferable to choose consistency between band articles across the encyclopedia? Is the infobox terminology the real problem, and would consistency across bands become more attractive if the infobox could be improved in some way to remove the issue completely? PL290 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The situation with The Beatles was quite different from Pink Floyd and so I am not particularly concerned about a lack of consistency between the two articles. Before I could comment on an infobox change, I'd have to see some alternatives. However, I think it's hard to make infoboxes deal with every situation perfectly and so we shouldn't worry too much about that; the infobox is a brief summary of what appears in the article, and the prose can explain what the infobox summarizes. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - From the time The Beatles recorded their first record for Parlophone in 1962 to the official breakup in 1970, there were only four members: John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. Before they became famous outside Liverpool and Hamburg, there were two other Beatles: Stuart Sutcliffe who left in 1961 and Pete Best who was sacked in favour of Ringo in 1962. So to avoid confusion, the infobox makes it clear that The Beatles were John, Paul, George and Ringo with ex-Beatles Stu and Pete. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons stated above. I don't know why I thought it said "current" members, but "members"--especially when juxtaposed with "former members"--strongly implies present membership. The core of my problem with the infobox is that the reader can induce from the article that four of the six "former members" are considerably more famous than the other two, while the reader cannot induce how a disbanded band still has any members, let alone deceased ones. I suspect that the past consensus (which, by the way, is not set in stone) and the present views have accidentally confused two types of membership with one another. John, Paul, George, and Ringo are the established members of the linguistic category, "The Beatles". However, they are not the (current) members of the actual band, the Beatles. Because the infobox pertains to bands--not to general linguistics--it should, IMO, accurately reflect membership in the band rather than in the abstract category. And because the band has no current members (even though the category does), they should not be presented as though they had some members whose membership is "former" and others whose membership is not. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Stick with the status quo. I doubt the current setup can mislead readers into thinking The Beatles are inactive, when just lines above it says the band was active from 1962-70. If people are still confused, they can read the article. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: "1962-70" actually strikes me as too restrictive. What about their 1994-96 reunion? Despite John's absence, they were writing (well, adding to some of John's unfinished work) and recording as "The Beatles". In fact, since they did reunite not too long ago, not to list them all as "former members" could give the impression that the 1994 reunion hasn't ended. Add this to the fact that the Beatles are now popular with the Rock Band generation (and since they're the #2-best-selling artists of the 2000s, I'm glad that the lead no longer implies that their "heyday" was confined to the 60s), and readers really could get the impression that the band still is actively making music or performing. While this notion would be (perhaps confusingly) debunked eventually by the article text, the fact that only four one-time members are now known as "Beatles" is noted as early as the second sentence of the lead: "From 1962 the group consisted of John Lennon...Paul McCartney...George Harrison...and Ringo Starr". I'm well aware that this issue has popped up time and time again. But it's for that very reason--i.e., because so many readers have been baffled by the infobox--that it seems most practical simply to list everyone as former members, and to let the second sentence of the lead suffice to indicate who is categorized as a Beatle and who (by implication) is not. In any case, I could've sworn I'd seen the infobox mention the 90s reunion before, and I don't see why that mention shouldn't remain. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
That has been discussed before and the consensus is that the "reunion" was strictly to work on the The Beatles Anthology TV mini-series and CD sets. Thus is not considered a reunion of the band. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
But the band did reunite to record "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love". While these songs did appear on two of the Anthology albums, these two pieces (especially "Free as a Bird") were created, not compiled, for the Anthology series, and they also were released as singles (and thus weren't always strictly part of the Anthology effort). How does a band record together without reuniting? In fact, if I recall correctly, "Free as a Bird" is one of only two songs (the other being "Flying" from Magical Mystery Tour) that is credited to all four Beatles, and it is the only song to feature three of the Beatles on lead vocals. If that's not a reunion (albeit a brief one), then I don't know what is. Perhaps only 1994 and 1996 (the release years for "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love", respectively) could be noted as years of activity? Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy-edits to the lead

Re: [2]

  • Biographical nationalities that open up an article are an exception to that rule; see the example sentence in WP:MOSBIO, wherein Egypt is wikilinked. What we wouldn't want is something like, "And then Joe had an English muffin with some butter."
  • I wouldn't think that "progressive" (in a sociopolitical sense) and "cancer" are "common dictionary terms". Most people probably don't say "progressivism" during the course of an ordinary day (I, for one, don't say it all that often, and I'm a political progressive); and while "cancer" is known as something that kills, the means by which it kills probably are not crystal-clear in most people's minds (can the average person give even a remotely reasonable definition of "metastasis"?). It clearly would be overlinking to say that the Beatles "became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music". But the terms in question are "exceptionally pertinent", because they shed light on A) the whole attitude that the band embodied, and B) the way George died. John's death is wikilinked (pipelinked, to be precise, from the words "shot and killed", which are pretty common terms), and a bit of elucidation (in a linked article) on what killed George could be just as helpful. We can't just take for granted that people will know what "progressive" and "cancer" mean, especially if these people know nothing about Anglo-American politics or have an alternative understanding of the human body. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I've restored the "which is" for sentence flow, following what probably should have been (at most) only a partial revert. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel too strongly about the linking but I think it's probably unnecessary. I agree with you in principle about "exceptionally pertinent" being a guiding principle, but I'm not convinced about its applicability to the terms you've linked. The Lennon link is not to a definition of "shot and killed" but to the article about his murder. I don't think "cancer" is analogous and I would have judged it a common term which the reader should use a dctionary for if necessary.
Re. "which is", personally I think it flowed better without these words, and I'm happy to see someone else agreed and they've gone again. Apart from introducing unnecessary padding into the sentence, they also changed its meaning by reducing it to a statement about the present instead of encompassing the fact that Pepper was regarded as a masterpiece on its release. Less = more: sentence is more comprehensive without imposing a time dimension, and no padding is required. PL290 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the past/present tense aspect before, but that's a good point. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Acts

I don't like "acts" in the Lead, "The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960, who became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music." I think the sentence works better without it, "The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960, who became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed in the history of popular music." Graham Colm Talk

I think you have a point--and, further, do we really need "became"? How about: "The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960 and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed in the history of popular music." PL290 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitely better IMHO, I'm annoyed that I didn't spot that :-) Graham Colm Talk 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand why the word "acts" might not appear essential, but it is. With it, we appropriately describe The Beatles as "one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music." Without it, we describe them, per the structure of the resulting sentence, as "one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed English rock bands in the history of popular music." The former is obviously more to the point. I've restored the word. DocKino (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it did introduce an ambiguity which allowed that interpretation. But consider: "Elvis Presley is one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed in the history of popular music." I think this shows that the sentence structure allows "those acclaimed" as well as "those acclaimed English rock bands". But I admit it would be better without the ambiguity. Perhaps there's another word? The thing about "acts" is that it covers both bands and individual artists. But it does have some unwanted connotations ("they were just an act"). I wonder if anyone can manage to come up with an even better word! PL290 (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Artists? Performers? (Might need to change "one of" to "among" for either of those.) Endeavours? Enterprises? Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lennon as Gollum!!

Who knew?! Chrisfromcanberra, that's who! [3] Folks, this might be trivia—OK, it is trivia—but it just might qualify as...Best. Trivia. Ever. What say you? DocKino (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is actually only one of many unmade Beatles films, listed in The_Beatles_in_film#Unmade_films. I don't think it warrants space in this article. PL290 (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Awwww. Well, it falls to you to make the cruelest cut. Bye-bye, Smeagol. The Walrus was almost you. DocKino (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

60 US concerts

"it included nearly 60 US concert appearances and over 1400 internationally" See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias -- the 60 US concerts were international appearances! If any of the other 1400 appearances were in Britain then they are the ones that were not international appearances. --PBS (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, these concluding words to the band's "Touring years" chapter are simply intended to note the context for stopping touring: they'd played over 1400 shows internationally (i.e., worldwide), over 60 of which were in the US—the country where they made the breakthrough to international stardom and which was a (the) significant market. I had a quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias but I'm not sure what your point is there. If you still feel there's an issue, could you explain further and perhaps illustrate the point with some suggested alternative wording? PL290 (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jamming with Elvis

At Footnote 104, it states that The Beatles set up their guitars and jammed with Elvis. I just watched The Beatles Anthology again last weekend, and in it George, Ringo, and Paul said that this was one of John Lennon's erroneous memories. They joked that none of them jammed with Elvis and John must have done so while they were out of the room. This is such a good Wikipedia article on The Beatles, I was surprised to read something that was contradicted by the Anthology.Baby Boomer 1958 (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting--it's something that comes up in various Beatle and Presley sources. I haven't watched Anthology for years and I don't remember that bit, but from your description, I do wonder if the joke was ironic. Does anyone have a WP:RS that elucidates? PL290 (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've heard this both ways, the one stated above, and also when they briefly jammed together and many years later McCartney wishing they'd brought tape recorders with them. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

One Billion

Whats wrong with posting the billion figure again? Where is the consensus/discussion on that? A Star Is Here (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to search the archives. There waqs a discussion about posting 600million and 1billion and I believe other numbers. The sources were not in agreement, with differences in detail (how do various organizations count "units") and differences in the actual number. One source, such as Time, isn't sufficient in this case. I am not opposed to citing a number, but the editors here have disgreed about that in the past, so I suggest that you get consensus first. If you have access to good sources, or good research skills, perhaps you will succeed. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good I'll search it and just wait it out and see what happens. Thanks A Star Is Here (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

associated acts

Hello, I was wondering if Wings should be listed as an associated act for the same reason Plastic ono band is. In fact, Plastic ono band was just a name for John's solo efforts, but Paul actually tryed to create a new band with Wings. (in spite of all the line-up changes).


190.135.167.93 (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Pelger.

The field Associated Acts is meant to be for "professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career." The guideline on this is located at {{infobox musical artist}}. So, Wings isn't listed as an associated act because it wasn't significant to The Beatles' career (but rather, to the career of an ex-Beatle). By the same token, I'm not sure why Plastic Ono Band does appear as an associated act and I propose to remove it. True, all three of Lennon, Harrison and Starr featured in this "conceptual supergroup" at one time or another after it was formed in 1969 prior to The Beatles' breakup, but it was still not notable or significant in the career of The Beatles. PL290 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Portal

Just FYI guys the Portal:The Beatles has a new section to draw attention to the WikiProject I have added a nice Link box ..assseen bellow...Can someone update the news in the portal...???...Have fun!!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject
Project talk
Log talk
Assessments talk
To do list talk
Media
  • The Beatles WikiProject is a project that helps to assemble writers and editors interested in The Beatles.
  • The aim of this project is to standardize and improve articles related to The Beatles, as well as to create any missing articles.
  • To become a member of this WikiProject (anyone may join), simply click here - and add {{user|username}}.
 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryDisambigDraftFilePortalProjectRedirectTemplateNA???Total
1401461614198152535243292057990551,86679214,993
More info on project....

Candlestick Park sound system reference

I ran across a reference to the size of the sound system at the Beatles last concert at Candlestick Park, but I have no idea where it should be inserted. Obviously it's not a major thing, but can help explain why The Beatles could often not hear themselves on stage and how they might find the experience of playing a concert unsatisfying:

When The Beatles played their last concert, at San Francisco's Candlestick Park in 1966, the equipment list for the show could have been written on the back of an envelope. The mics were Shure SM56s, the speakers were modified Altec A-7s powered by Altec 1569 80-watt tube amplifiers, and McCune Sound's Mort Feld mixed the show on one or two Altec 1567 five-input rotary pot tube mixers.

For the sake of comparison, this is smaller than the sound system in an average movie theater. Anyway, here is the link:

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_second_british_invasion/

Mix is a US magazine for professionals in recording and live sound reinforcement. K8 fan (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point. When The Beatles switched to playing stadiums they simply just miked up their own very modest stage equipment through the venue’s own basic public address system - more or less. Not much effort made there! The Who, for instance, couldn’t understand why The Beatles continued to use Vox AC30’s etc (although McCartney had bigger system) and sang through microphones that resembled “electric shavers” when there existed far better alternatives. It would have meant investing in bigger and better sound equipment and employing more manpower. Would it have been worth all that for a thirty minute set? The Beatles seemed oddly indifferent in trying to solve the sound problem, preferring instead to complain about it. They were a bit of a rip-off live weren’t they?--Patthedog (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Shortly after the Candlestick Park concert, there was a burst of innovation in concert sound design. By the time of the rooftop concert, they could have benefited from on-stage monitor speakers and dramatically better main systems. Oh well. Perhaps in an alternate universe... K8 fan (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles named top 'brand band’

[[4]] --Roujan (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(and happy new year for all the members of Wikipedia)

MUSIC PUBLISHING - AN OVERVIEW

An interesting link, because you can see how the redistribution is done between the songwriters and the publishers [[5]] --Roujan (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

British or English?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing poll. Existing consensus was to use "English": this continues to have strongest support. No consensus for changing to "British". PL290 (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(discussion prior to straw poll)

No doubt the Beatles were predominantly English, as the four band members were English, but as Sutcliffe was Scottish, and Best was born in British India, surely it would be more appropriate to use 'British' to describe their nationality. They were signed to the British label EMI, and were most associated with the label 'British Invasion' in America. Britannica uses 'British' to describe the band. I do not intend to use this as some kind of propaganda for the term, but it seems to be more in line with how the band actually identified themselves. --78.105.52.52 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this change completely, but not the justification used. How they 'identify' themselves is irrelevant, frankly. The Beatles were all British citizens, most of their recording took place in Britain, they were based in and originated from Britain and the Wikipedia manual of style even dictates that the the constinutent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) should only be used to describe nationality or origin when regarding particular professional sport teams or players, which do not play as a nation but rather for their constituency. TheStig118 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
By the same token, and more precisely, the band originated and was based in England, all four long-standing band members were English nationals, and all of their studio recording took place in England. Where applicable, the more specific ("English") is preferable to the more general ("British"). DocKino (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't have strong views on whether they are called British or English. However, I don't know what you mean about their being "English nationals": I don't think this is verifiable as there is not test for English nationals. Also, I think your implication that English is simply more specific than the "more general" British is mistaken. Bluewave (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What I mean when I say they were "English nationals" is that they were born in England to English parents.
  • I do not "imply" that "English" is more specific in this context than "British", I state it to be so. In this context, "British" means the people of Great Britain and "English" means the people of England, a constituent of Great Britain. Identification by the constituent is the more specific identification; identification by the whole is the more general identification. DocKino (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If you have a look at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, you'll see that there is no censensus on how the the nationality of people (and presumably bands) from the UK is determined. Being born in England (or any other country) does not automatically confer nationality and saying that their parents were "English" rather begs the question of distinguishing Englishness from Britishness. "English" doesn't just mean "the people of England". A lot of people who are "of England" identify themselves as "British", rather than "English". I suspect that all four of the Beatles had passports that gave their nationality as "British" (because "English" is not recognised internationally as a nationality). But, as I say, I'm not arguing to change the article, merely saying that the argument for leaving it as "English" is not as clear-cut as you suggest. Bluewave (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
My take is subtly different again: first off, I agree with the principle that a specific statement is preferable to a general one. To make the point, it's also accurate to say they are a European band, but clearly that's an inadequate description. Bluewave, we who are "of England" identify ourelves as British not rather than "English" but as well as English. We use one or the other term according to the specificity required on any given occasion. As far as an article about The Beatles is concerned, English is a more specific term and so is the one I think is preferable. As a side note, in my opinion--and this is where I differ slightly from others so far--I would have said it's not to do with the individuals but the "base location". Manchester United F.C. is an English Premier League football club--notwithstanding the presence of Welshman Ryan Giggs or Dutchman Edwin van der Sar--while their Scottish manager, Alex Ferguson, also happens to be the most successful manager in British football history. PL290 (talk)
It seems quite clear that the argument for English over British is racially motivated. England is not a country in the international sense and English is not a nationalisty and presenting it as such is deliberately misleading and against the principles of NPOV. If you look at old Beatles videos they play in front of the union flag not the St Georges Cross, there has in fact been an entire book written about the Beatles connection to Scotland, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beatles-Scotland-Ken-McNab/dp/1846971128/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263474369&sr=8-1, they clearly had no hatred of the other countries of Britain. There is also the fact that not every person involved in producing the Beatles music, roadies, engineers, former members etc. are 100% English.
American bands aren't defined by states or other countries by reigon, saying English rather than British is over specifying their origin, why not specify their skin colour as well so the opening would then read "The Beatles were a white English band" it's acurate and factual and is no more racist than refusing to mention Britain or the UK anywhere in relation to the bands country of origin for the simple reason that you don't like it.
Another important point the UK music industry is not seperated by constituent country but is the same UK wide, number one in England is number one in Scotland and number one in Wales and number one in Northern Ireland; if the industry is treated as British then so should the bands that are part of it.212.183.140.6 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's just start from the top, shall we? "It seems quite clear that the argument for English over British is racially motivated." Oh, so?! Please describe what in my, or anyone else's, comments made this "clear" to you. While you're at it, please identify the different races involved.
Next, the logic of your argument seems to be that we should abandon the identifiers "English", "Scottish", etc. except in the case of self-identified nationalists or...the linguistics textbook industry? Please explain how the logical argument based on specificity over generality is dismissed as "the simple reason that you don't like it", but your rather radical notions of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable language somehow transcend what you do and don't "like". DocKino (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
To refute the fact that Britain is an independent sovereign state and England is not, is to be an idiot. The previous user is completely correct - if we are determining a band be nationality, their viewpoints, other people's viewpoints, it's all irrelevant. All that matters is fact. To argue against fact is just ridiculous. The fact is: their nationality was British, and not English. Not a matter of discussion, a clear fact. Does anything more really need to be said? TheStig118 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
As we have now reached that foreseeable point in the discussion where those with only the vaguest understanding of grammar and rhetoric feel compelled to weigh in...no, I think not. DocKino (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Or we could avoid it by making the lede: The Beatles were a Liverpudlian rock band, formed in 1960 and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. :) Shsilver (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
At last! Humor! (Sorry.) Humour! DocKino (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Another debate that went before; most previous discusssions has concluded that English is preferred since (for who knows what reason) both American and British - oh, the irony - contemporaneous sources referred to them as English. Legally, the members and thus the band were British (and all apart from Ringo had recent Irish ancestry) but then Ringo is really Richie and Macca properly James. Since this is a popular culture article, however, then it seems that we go with the terms that have been placed upon them, rather than the definitive. Personally, I prefer British because there was little in their music that is definitely English rather than any part of the United Kingdom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
As there is no Wikipedia consensus on how the nationality of people from the British Isles is determined, any attempt to resolve the issue on this page through simple argument is doomed. The basic problem is that there is no agreed definition of "English" nationality and no agreed objective criteria for determining "Englishness" (in Wikipedia or anywhere else). I suggest that there are two options. The lazy option is to say we stick with the status quo because there is no consensus for change; the more encyclopaedic option is to check reliable sources and go with what the majority of them say. Personally, I'm a lazy git and so I would go for the first option. But if anyone is more zealous than me and has better access to the literature written about The Beatles, they could resolve this once and for all. Bluewave (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(I like that cool outdent thing) If it rises above the noise, my suggestion would be to use "British" as in "The Beatles lead the British Invasion." But that might be considered a 'merican point of view. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think it might—a germane observation, Jwy—and don't forget, Donovan is Scottish—he wouldn't've been able to come if they'd called it English Invasion :} PL290 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
“English rock band” is fine with me, although I’d prefer the old pop/rock description included as well. They’re entitled to be referred to as English, just as the Average White Band are described as Scottish, Manic Street Preachers Welsh, and U2 Irish. The phrase "British Invasion" was probably, and possibly wrongly, first used by an American journalist - anyway, how many of those early bands were not English? (BTW, wtf were Chad & Jeremy? They should not be first on that list - if at all - in my ever so 'umble!).--Patthedog (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Whoops! U2 are from Dublin and therefore can’t qualify. O.k. swap for Van Morrison or Snow Patrol etc.--Patthedog (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Either British or English would be fine with me. Do we know how the band liked to call themselves? ~DC Talk To Me 15:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
How is that relevant? The entire purpose of the whole site itself is to act as an encyclopaedia, of which provides factual, unbiased, cited information to the user. By referring to them as 'English', it would be factually incorrect and would thus be against the entire purpose of the project. There is no valid reason to change it from British to English. TheStig118 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
How is it in any way factually incorrect? It is a fact that they were an English band, just as it is a fact that they were a British one. You are hardly able to talk about "unbiased" encyclopedic information as you are clearly biased against using the word English, believing it to be "racially motivated" which it patently is not.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC
I have at no point claimed to perceive the term as a racist one, that was some other fellow. I simply argue for fact, and you attempting to refute it is pitiful indeed. 'English' does not exist. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Any further questions?
Yes the racist bit was another user, sorry about that. But I still refute your point that the term "English" to describe a group is somehow inaccurate or "non-existent." Your argument above that "to refute the fact that Britain is an independent sovereign state and England is not, is to be an idiot" is a classic straw man as no-one is saying that at all; simply that all four members of the band were English and England is a part of the UK so it is simply a case of being more specific, in the same way that the Average White Band are described as Scottish and the Manic Street Preachers as Welsh. How is that such a difficult concept to grasp?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Those articles that you keep referring to I view as incorrect also. You argue that the band were English and England is a part of the UK so it is simply a case of being more specific - so we should go round all the American articles and make them more specific by labelling them as which state they are from, not which country they are from? I am now expecting you and/or others to come back with, 'well, England is a country'. No, it is not. Furthermore, 'English' does not exist. There is no such thing as an English citizen. If you're from the UK, check your passports. It's not changed in the past 50 years - therefore, the Beatles were British Citizens, thus saying they were 'English' is factually incorrect. Do you see where I'm coming from now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheStig118 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
England is a country, not a state, so your analogy doesn't hold. To answer your question, where you're coming from, it seems, is a country called Denial. Both statements (they were British, and they were English) are equally true. Do you seriously expect to gain consensus for changing the article based on your untrue statements, which include: "By referring to them as 'English', it would be factually incorrect", "'English' does not exist", "I am now expecting you and/or others to come back with, 'well, England is a country'. No, it is not.", "saying they were 'English' is factually incorrect"? Do you see where we're coming from now? PL290 (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Stig. The USA is a single country, whereas Great Britain consists of four countries - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Elvis Presley was born in Tupelo in the state of Mississippi (articles will include the state anyway) part of the United States of America. John Lennon was born in the city Liverpool, part of England, which is also part of a sovereign state called Great Britain, or the United Kingdom. He was both English and British, and that is what we are discussing here. Either term would be correct, but I happen to think it’s worth mentioning as we go along that England (or Scotland etc) is a country, as it might help to educate and inform. That’s all. Do you see where I’m coming from? It’s called England. --Patthedog (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The Stig does have a fair point....we are not debating which country The Beatles came from, we are debating their nationality. It is debatable whether there is such a thing as English nationality: the Stig appears to believe not; also, international law does not recognise "English" as a nationality, so the Stig has got some consensus to point to. However, there are plenty of people in England who believe that there is such a thing as an English nationality, even though it is not officially recognised. Whether The Beatles themselves believed in an English nationality I don't know. Although there is a very clear definition of British nationality, I strongly doubt that anyone can find a reliable source that defines the criteria for someone possessing English nationality and can thereby prove that The Beatles meet those criteria. Bluewave (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Bluewave, we are not debating that. You yourself drew our attention to WP:UKNATIONALS, where it states, "Wikipedia: Manual of Style (biographies) provides that the opening paragraph of a biographical article should state the person's "nationality". However, there is no consensus on how this guideline should be applied to people from the United Kingdom. The accompanying link is to debates spanning a period of years. On that same page it advises, "Do not enforce uniformity", "Look for existing consensus on the discussion page", and "Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British" ... —is strongly discouraged." If there is any meaningful discussion to be had here, it is to gauge whether consensus is to use "British" or stick with the established consensus "English". So, straw poll time... PL290 (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I’m not sure that this discussion is just about nationality. It would be a little odd if the article failed to mention England, or being English, wouldn’t it - or am I going mad? Liverpool is in the Outer Hebrides isn’t it? --Patthedog (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Before we vote, could I just check what we're voting on? I thought it was nationality but Patthedog says not. I think I would vote differently for "general geographical association" than I would for "nationality". Bluewave (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Which of the two wordings sit more comfortably with you? Bearing in mind you can be a British Citizen as well as being English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. I think it’s worth pointing out that The Beatles were English, although there is actually a compromise way of wording it. --Patthedog (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We are voting on Nationality, as described in the article Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. I've updated the poll to reflect this. As appalled as I may feel, the fact we must be reduced to an opinionated poll to debate the blatant fact they were officially British citizens and not English, it is probably the only reasonable manner we can settle this. I'd like to propose the poll end on the February 1st. TheStig 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The article does not explicitly assert anything about the nationality of the band members. Changed description of poll back to the original. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you blind? "The Beatles were and English band..." straight there. First line. Not hard to miss. TheStig 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
First, please see WP:CIVIL. Second, "English" is often used to refer to people from England without making specific claims about nationality, and in some of those cases, it refers to a cultural and/or ethnic characteristic and not to political divisions. Last, thanks for helping me decide how to vote. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
“…reduced to an opinionated poll” as opposed to your sweet, unbiased reasoning?--Patthedog (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

British/English straw poll

Please read before voting: poll arose because User:TheStig118 repeatedly changed "English" to "British" in the opening paragraph (discussed above), against existing consensus and against WP:UKNATIONALS which states: "Wikipedia: Manual of Style (biographies) provides that the opening paragraph of a biographical article should state the person's "nationality". However, there is no consensus on how this guideline should be applied to people from the United Kingdom"; "Do not enforce uniformity"; "Look for existing consensus on the discussion page"; "Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen 'British' ... —is strongly discouraged."

Proposal: change the first sentence of the lead to state "British" instead of "English". Interested parties please sign under one of the headings below to Support or Oppose this change. PL290 (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support


Oppose

Abstain

  • Bluewave (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC) On the grounds that I don't understand what we are voting for. If we were voting on nationality, I would have a slight preference for "British"; if we are talking about ethnicity, I would vote for "leave it out"; if we mean how the Beatles identified themselves, I'd go for "Liverpudlian". As it is, we don't seem to have an agreement on what we're voting about, so the whole thing's meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. Bluewave (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
As I see it, the fuss is about whether the first line say they are a British or an English band. Abstaining seems the most sane thing to me. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Questionable voting practice

Duplicate vote? → * 86.14.32.100 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC) this earlier edit shows User:TheStig118 re-signing a comment by 86.14.32.100. PL290 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC) *Well spotted. Obviously, it now doesn't count, and cheating ought to be punished. --Patthedog (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC) *As unbelieveable as it may seem, it wasn't me. I asked my brother (who lives in this house also, and makes regular Wikipedia edits) if he cast the vote, which he confirmed. Apologies. TheStig 17:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved the "Duplicate vote" and related comments from the Straw Poll section to this section. The comments are not related to the poll itself and should not be mixed in that section.
TheStig118 (talk · contribs) asserts that his brother makes regular Wikipedia edits and that it was his brother who voted using the IP address. There have been relatively few edits from 86.14.32.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a total of 22 in the past year. TheStig118 did not say whether he also edits when not signed in, but the evidence strongly suggests that he does: the articles edited by the two accounts overlap and the edits are similar, including a dispute about using the word English vs. British on another page (See Talk:Queen (band)). Furthermore, it strikes me as odd that two brothers living in the same household would not have already discussed that both voted in a WP poll and thus TheStig118 would have to ask his brother if the vote from the IP address was his. This evidence strongly suggests that TheStig118 has not told us the whole story, and that 86.14.32.100 is either a sock puppet or meat puppet of TheStig118. Using a sock puppet or meat puppet as part of a poll disrupts the consensus process and is prohibited on Wikipedia. I believe all votes from TheStig188 or 86.14.32.100 should be ignored. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It’s like working alongside Columbo and Poirot! It’s good to have you bloodhounds on the side of the good guys. After checking out the evidence, I personally don’t accept TheStig118’s explanation either. I think that what you suggest would be entirely appropriate at the very least.--Patthedog (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Beatles Started a Cultural Revolution

This two articles are not written by marketing agents (who are paid by record labels)

[[6]] [[7]] --Roujan (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There are no critical voices to be heard

The early years and Beatlemania sections of the Beatles article do not include any critical voices, as far as I can see, though there were many to be heard at the beginning of the band’s career. For instance, a Life article of September 13, 1968, reports, p.105, that, when Epstein first visited the Beatles, “They were not very tidy and not very clean. They smoked as they played and they ate and talked and turned their backs on the audience and laughed at their private jokes.” According to Ian Inglis, The Beatles, Popular Music and Society: A Thousand Voices (2000), “the Beatles found the US press less positive: The music was ridiculed along with the haircuts.” (p.144) See also the attacks in the New Statesman concerning the group and their negative influence on the fans cited in the same volume, p. 145. Furthermore, “the Beatles' accent was often ridiculed and regarded as a kind of impenetrable gobbledygook, especially by the southerners.” See Janne Mäkelä, John Lennon Imagined: Cultural History of a Rock Star (2004), p.45. The Beatles have also been accused of overtly shunning “adult values and adult behavior.” See Carl Belz, The Story of Rock (1969), p.128. It has even been said that, while “touring in the 1960s, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones constantly contracted venereal diseases.” See Theodore Gracyk, Rhythm and Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock (1996), p. 190. Does the Wikipedia article make mention of these or similar details? No, it doesn’t. It only mentions in passing that Paul McCartney and Pete Best were arrested for arson in 1960, that there was “riotous enthusiasm by screaming fans” and that the group’s “mop-top” hairstyle, unusually long for the era, was “still mocked by many adults.” It is to be hoped therefore that the contributors to this article may change their mind as far as the critical voices about the Beatles are concerned. A Wikipedia article is not a fan site Onefortyone (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you need to start yet another new article: Evidence that The Beatles Were Naughty, Naughty Boys. DocKino (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a little off the mark; it will need at least another two: The Beatles: a-musical or amusing? and Only a Northern Pong. PL290 (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I heartily agreed. If you were to make a film based on this entry it would be pretty sterile and not very comprehensive. They even reverted my entry about the Beatle-LOTR connection. Boring. BORING Chrisfromcanberra (talk)

Hey, we agonized over it first (well, DocKino did anyway; and wasn't that a great parting line about the Walrus). Chris, you know it ain't easy. The conversation's just above--convince us! PL290 (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

People mocking their haircuts or accents isn't very important, people can mock everything. And the fact that they smoked or have on occasion ignored a pub audience doesn't mean anything either. Criticism is accusations of plagiarism or if they used their music intentionally for currpting purposes or something.

The only point you made is we could have a paragraph about the beginning of beatles mania something like this... (sentence about mop tops and tuxes), although perceived silly by some.... Just something passing about their early fashion is relevant because I just personally know a few people who before sgt. peppers. when they grew facial hair and wore psychedelic clothes didn't care about them. But even this is just fashion and has nothing to do with their music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Interactive Tour date map

I would like to add this link to the external links as 'Interactive tour date map'. You can find it here.

Let me know your thoughts. JonathanDMWagner (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would not meet the criteria. Exceptions are made for "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources", but in this case the great unwashed are the source. PL290 (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any knowledgeable source I could use to make a valid map? If I were to use Beatles Dates Would it be valid? JonathanDMWagner (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I see you're associated with the site, and your recently created article on it (your sole contribution so far to Wikipedia) was quickly deleted as spam. The article was then recovered and placed at AfD where it now awaits debate. Given your confict of interest, and your presumed desire to contest the deletion, I recommend you study Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (available via the links just provided) in greater depth than your latest reply indicates you have yet done. PL290 (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks JonathanDMWagner (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Capital T

Another thing I noticed (another relatively minor thing, really, but an FA ought to be polished when the opportunity arises) is that the word "the", as in "The Beatles", is always capitalized in the article. I fail to understand why this is necessary. It's true that the word "The" is part of the band's name, and should be capitalized when referring to the band's name (e.g., "The band once known as 'The Beetles' later became 'The Beatles'"). But when referring to the people rather than the name, the word "the" simply functions as a definite article and does not need to be capitalized. For example, one would not write, "And the next week, all of The four Beatles got together for..." Minus the capital "T", this would be a perfectly fine sentence, but the interjection of the optional modifier, "four", makes it clearer that the word "the", when referring to the band as a plurality of members rather than as a single entity or name, is not functioning as part of the band's name, but rather as a grammatical necessity. And, the article does refer to the band as a plurality of members, as is evidenced by the apostrophe placement in the possessive, "Beatles'". If the article were referring to the band as a single entity, it would say "Beatles's", and the possessive "'s" would add an extra (awkward) syllable. It's the difference between, "...and 'The Beatles' is the band's name" and "...and the Beatles are John, Paul, George, and Ringo". In the first phrase, "The" functions as part of the band's name. In the second phrase, the word "the" simply functions as a definite article, indicating that only a select few people are Beatles (as opposed to a non-restrictive construction like "...and Beatles are everywhere around us"). I know this all might sound nitpicky; however, because the article is so good overall, it could benefit from some refining of the "little things". Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The capital T has come up before. Not everyone agrees with it, but consensus was reached to use it and so other editors go along with it. Incidentally, it's a convention used by more sources than you might think. I don't personally agree with it but I accept the convention because consensus was reached about it in the past. There have been strong feelings expressed about it here and I would advise anyone against trying to argue the point or prove one way is right and the other wrong because this has proved complicated and fruitless in the past. But I think anyone should feel free to take a simple yes/no straw poll at any time to gauge current opinion about this or anything else. PL290 (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"The Beatles" and "Beatles" are registered trade marks owned by Apple Corps, Ltd. So there are legal reasons why the band is identified as "The Beatles." Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the band per se should be identified as "The Beatles". But when talking about the members, i.e., about "more than one Beatle", the nominal "The" is dropped in favour of the functional "the". A comparison would be The Bahamas. As one entity--as the one focus of that article--it is indeed "The Bahamas". But when it's referred to as "the Commonwealth of the Bahamas"--the commonwealth of more than one 'Bahama'--there's not a capital "T" anywhere in sight. In the Beatles article, it's not always clear as to whether the band per se or the plurality of members is intended. But "Beatles'" is favoured over "Beatles's" as the possessive case, so I figure the article might as well be standardized by treating "the Beatles" as a plurality and, therefore, by keeping the "T" in lower-case. Honestly, this stuff is pretty subtle, and I certainly don't want to come across as a troll--especially a troll with a stick. I just think that the/The Beatles deserve a flawless article--and I think this one is almost there, although I realize that the definition of "flawless" is subjective. Anyway, I'm willing to initiate a straw poll to see where things stand. I'm aware now of what the earlier consensus was, but I'd just like to see if it will remain in-place or might change on account of anything I've said. So:

[outdent] Straw poll: Propose to switch most capital T's in "The Beatles" to lower-case t's. Obvious exceptions would be in the infobox, in the article's name, and where the word "The" begins a sentence. Other exceptions would be where a a capital T appears in a direct quotation, where "The Beatles" as the band's name is referred to, and wherever the band clearly is being referred to as a single entity rather than as a plurality of members [struck through potentially ambiguous clause].

I debunked the false trademark-based argument a long time ago.McTavidge (talk)

No you did NOT debunk the argument. It is proven by several entries in the UK Intellectual Property Office web site such as at [8] and [9] among other entries found on the UK IPO web site. Steelbeard1 (talk)
Although this surely isn't your point, the UK IPO web site would actually support the argument that the band's name should always appear as follows: THE BEATLES. As in: THE BEATLES were from England, though THE BEATLES visited other places. You say that the use of capital t is "proven" by this web site; but actually what's "proven" (and I mean this facetiously, as nothing on this subject is actually proven by this web site) is that all of the letters should be capitalized. Now, if the "argument" that is supposedly "proven" by the web site is that "the" is "part of the name" and therefore (and here comes the big assumption...) ... and therefore has to be capitalized along with the rest of the name, then please note that the Beatles' trademark registration actually records a number of different marks, among them just plain old "BEATLES" without the article. If you're going to use the web site to "prove" that "the" is part of the name, then how do you account for the presence of just plain old "BEATLES" sans article? Maybe I missed it (and if I did, please point it out), but no one has ever cogently addressed the points I'm making here, preferring instead simply to shout that "the UK IPO web site PROVES" blah, blah, blah.McTavidge (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and about this "consensus" I hear was achieved on the use of cap t (a consensus so elusive a couple of years ago), it might be nice to have a link to the archived discussion where this was achieved instead of this slight rehashing that appears above. Can anyone drag it out? (I'm curious about what "consensus" consisted of the last go round. Also, I got my hand slapped when I tried to apply what I thought was the rule, i.e., that there wasn't a rule because there wasn't a consensus and that therefore editors would do whatever they saw fit to do.)McTavidge (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious too about the original discussion. As a copyeditor, I can't think of a good reason to capitalize the T. Articles are, as a rule, lowercase in the context of a sentence, even when they are part of the official title of something (the New York Times, etc.) The copyright argument is clearly wrong, as the books I've read on the Beatles (by major publishers) do not capitalize the T. I'm also the author of a book on John Lennon, and the "the" was not capitalized in our book either. Anyway, it's pointless to argue if it's already been settled...just wanted to add my two cents. Juniperjoline1 (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Opportunities for commonality

Ladies and gentlemen! From the producers of such all-time favoritesfavourites as "the/The", "was/were" and "group/band", the latest saga has now been officially released: "ize/ise". British dictionaries confirm that both spellings are part of British English—quite unlike, say, "favorite" or "color"—and some of them give "ize" as the preferred or primary British English spelling of most or all of the words in question. Personally I do not mind which spelling is used—guided by the aforementioned references, we should consider them equally acceptable—but I simply appeal to my fellow editors to consider the principle behind Wikipedia:Mos#Opportunities_for_commonality, and to therefore accept the more globally used spelling when it is indeed legitimate British English. In addition, as a result of the recent edits, the article now contains quotations whose spelling has been changed from "ize" to "ise", disregarding MOS:QUOTE. My attempts to point all this out via edit summaries have so far failed, and my edit to restore the previous version of the article was simply reverted, twice, by two different editors. I am not prepared to edit-war over this, and, as I said, I don't have a strong preference (unlike some, it seems) for one or other of these two British English spellings, but it does not seem appropriate to allow a personal preference to deform quotes. Concerning those instances that are not in quotes, I appeal to others to overcome personal preferences in the light of the cited principle of commonality in this global encyclopedia we are all working on together. Should this develop into a debate over what British dictionaries say, we will need to make a clear distinction between preferences (which even dictionaries admit to) and the simple fact of whether a word appears in British English (in contrast with such things as "color" and "favorite" which most certainly do not). Enjoy! PL290 (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My view is, the article clearly should be in British English. Although some dictionaries do say that "ize" is acceptable in Br Eng, it still strikes many people as American in flavo(u)r and is not nearly as common as "ise". I believe it is therefore simpler and less controversial to use "ise." Whether or not "ise" is less "globally used" is not relevant in my opinion as to whether it should be used in this article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a British article about a British subject matter which happens to be of global importance. But it is still about a British subject so "-ise" must be used. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
PL290's point was that "-ize" is British too, so your argument doesn't really make sense. —Akrabbimtalk 14:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. The current spelling is perfectly proper British English, and should be maintained on the basis of Wikipedia's well-established preference for both commonality and stability in matters of style. The change currently being advocated brings unnecessary controversy to the article and absolutely no benefit to the reader. DocKino (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that MOS:QUOTE says original spelling should be preserved but it is just a guideline and it is wrong to say as you did in your edit summary that it is "impermissible in any circumstance" to go against it. It's a bit of a red herring anyway, as of the ten examples of "ize" in the article, only two are part of quotes! Also, I believe the article was originally in the "ise" form, not the other way round.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
While Dictionaries may well say that both are permissible, the common spelling is with the "s". The argument against commonality is that "ize" (outside of some specific examples) is that it really is not common within the UK, and certainly is rarely used in instruments of record. Since this is an encyclopedia, it should then conform to the highest standard of the agreed English variant - and that would seem to standardise on using the "ise" spelling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with "-ise". Also, when I reverted one of PL290's edits, I cited WP:RETAIN in my edit summary. I was thinking in particular of the phrase, "...the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used". This article has been around for a long time now, with the -ise spelling. I don't think we should or need to make mass changes. Also, "-ise" is the more commonly used spelling in Britain, so WP:ENGVAR would also apply. Radiopathy •talk• 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_23&oldid=1146790146"